One bill, in particular, has caught my attention. It would require women to have an ultrasound at least two hours before a scheduled abortion, so they would have the option of viewing the development of their baby before ending its life.

One abortion rights leader was appalled at the legislation, telling the media, “The notion that women make this decision cavalierly is offensive and quite insensitive. It’s only about shaming them and making them feel guilty.”

The two top Republicans in the Legislature -- House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville -- announced that they had no interest in the bill and would not help it pass.

Apparently, some Republicans have read the polls and no longer want to mess with a social issue that does nothing but create debate and division. That’s disappointing. Republicans used to stand on moral ground when it came to abortion, and didn’t let polls in their way.

There is historic precedent for taking such a moral stand, regardless of the public mood. There was a time when slavery was accepted and considered normal by a clear majority of Americans. Only a few brave souls stood their ground and pressed the issue. Thank God they did.

I think the ultrasound legislation is the best idea regarding abortion that I’ve heard in a long time. Unborn babies have one serious disadvantage when their mothers are considering abortion. It’s called “out of sight, out of mind.” Being viewed through an ultrasound would at least give these developing children a final chance to appeal on their own behalf.

Abortion proponents go out of their way to help mothers avoid guilt over their decision to end a pregnancy. There is a reason these people don’t want the women to get a good look at their babies before abortions.

The mothers would clearly recognize that their babies are living and growing, and a lot of them would probably change their minds. But fewer abortions would put a dent in a profitable industry, and we can’t have that, can we?

I’m not arguing that abortion should be illegal. The truth is that I’ve been torn on the issue for years. As a Republican I believe in limited governmental power over individual citizens, and it seems that a woman’s right to govern her own body should fall under that category.

On the other hand, the mother is only one person involved in a pregnancy. The other two -- the baby and the father -- are legally without voices. I’m not sure that’s morally defensible.

If a fetus was not alive, it would not take nourishment, grow and develop inside the womb. It’s hard for me to understand how the courts can deny fundamental rights to living, growing humans, just because they haven’t passed the mandatory gestation period.

And what about the dads?

I know a lot of guys who became fathers against their will. They played their part in creating a baby, and the law forced them to accept their financial responsibility when their child was born. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that.

But the father has no say in abortion decisions. Why not? If he’s expected to play an equal role in paying for and raising the child, shouldn’t he have some strong input when it comes to deciding if the child should be born?

I’m not suggesting that a father should be able to choose abortion over the mother’s wishes. But I wonder if the father should have the power to block an abortion if he agrees to take responsibility for his child once it’s born.